Make a Donation

Subscribe to Our Feeds

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0279. Thursday, 27 February 1997.
[1] From: Jonathan Hope <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 14:28:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subj: Re: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio*
[2] From: Patrick Gillespie <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 10:30:29 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio*
[3] From: John Robinson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 19:03:32 -0500 (EST)
Subj: Re: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio*
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Hope <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 14:28:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio*
Comment: Re: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio*
> Is *Cardenio* *The Second Mayden's Tragedy*, as Charles Hamilton said?
No.
> Does E. Sams agree with Hamilton on this point?
I can't speak officially for Eric, but in private communication he's
been quite open to Hamilton's idea - I'd say more because the idea seems
so outrageous, rather than because he thinks it is likely
> Has anyone suggested anything besides SMT (Don't tell me about
> <italic>Double Falsehood<italic>)? If not, we'll have to stick with
> Hamilton's theory, crazy as it may sound.
Sorry to puff myself for the second time in two weeks, and to mention
the DF play, but on pages 89-100 of *The Authorship of Shakespeare's
Plays* I give evidence that shows that *DF* doesn't look linguistically
like Theobald's other plays, and is consistent with it being an
adaptation of a text which contained two divergent idiolects - one
looking like Shakespeare's, the other looking like Fletcher's.
So if you're one of those boring people who likes to take evidence into
account before coming to conclusions, *DF* stays in the frame as about
as good a candidate for Cardenio as we have.
Jonathan Hope
Middlesex University
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Patrick Gillespie <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 10:30:29 -0500
Subject: 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio*
Comment: RE: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio*
There have been some recent biographies on Shakespeare (Shakespeare: The
Facts perhaps?) that have dismissed, though only summarily, Hamilton's
argument, assigning the play to Middleton. There has been disagreement
concerning Hamilton's handwriting analysis, although I personally,
albeit being ignorant in the science, find his case convincing for
claiming Q wrote the play out. This is not to say that he "wrote" it.
Again, most responses to this play assign the play to Middleton. I
believe the author of Shakespeare: The Facts, argues against Cardenio as
SMT but does not offer an alternative.
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Robinson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997 19:03:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio*
Comment: Re: SHK 8.0276 Q: *Cardenio*
Nice try. But just because no one has a better theory does not mean we
have to accept a crazy one. It seems to me that Mr Hamilton has made
other questionable statements in the past. I believe he has written
that all of Shakespeare's will is in Shakespeare's hand; I also believe
he contends that Shakespeare ghost wrote all-are most of-Sir Francis
Bacon's works. He is not a reliable source of info. But sure, he might
be right-it's just not likely.
John Robinson